I have done some work and adjustments on Raw files in Lightroom 4 , but when I look at the files in Finder , the changes appear not to have been applied .

If during making adjustments I also edit in Photoshop 5 , then I see that the changes are applied and saved as I wish ,

but I dont always need to make changes in Photoshop , so why do my files appear to be unaltered ?

When the camera takes a Raw image, it also makes a quick conversion of the Raw data using its current image settings, and the result is a viewable preview. This gets saved into the Raw file in JPG form, alongside the Raw data itself.

When you view a Raw image in Lightroom, you are not seeing this viewable preview (except just briefly at first). You are seeing an adjusted conversion that LR has made. It is adjusted in whatever way you have set, using LR's adjustment sliders. The results of that are saved by LR as its own viewable preview, separate from the original file.

When you open a Raw image into Photoshop which you have edited in LR, Photoshop incorporates these adjustments onto the Raw data, so produces the same visible result as LR did internally.

It can do this either because LR has passed it a fully independent, new, converted TIFF (or PSD) image which reflects these changes, or else because LR has written instructions alongside the Raw file as to how to specifically adjust the conversion that Photoshop (more properly, Adobe Camera Raw) is then going to make using the Raw data inside it. The viewable JPG preview from the camera, is in this case ignored.

There are also "quick browser" methods for viewing Raw images. This does not bother to make a conversion. It therefore cannot pay attention to any adjustment instructions. Instead, it extracts and displays the original viewable preview (that the camera put there initially).

This is relatively fast and easy compared to what LR (or ACR) does. It is simply a continuation of how you reviewed the photo in the camera: you are looking at the exact same, unchanged, embedded JPG.

No. Lightroom is a "non-destructive" editor, i.e. changes you make to an image are stored as parameters in the catalog, and applied to the preview that you see. Look at a file outside Lightroom and you just see the original image. To "save" your edits you simply use the Export option which will produce a rendered version of the original image with the baked-in edits....various ouput formats are available during the export. Photoshop/PSE are most definitely not needed for just this purpose.

So really I have to edit each image in Photoshop or at least open them and save them in PS for the changes to be applied .

I think that is what you are saying ?

No, I am saying that Lightroom gives you a managed environment within which you can efficiently browse and view your image library, but also at the same time, adjust it as needed fluidly and on-the-fly without needing to save any changes to any files. In this environment you see all the adjustments you have made, and can also maintain more than one set of adjustments in parallel, against a given Raw file on disk (by means of virtual copies).

While inside LR you are not restricted to just using physical folder based methods of organisation and classification.

If you need to see the changes LR has made in some other context, then you would purpose-make a suitably specified EXPORT (or Publish) copy - most often for economy and compatibility reasons, a downsized JPG in sRGB colourspace, but there are other possibilities too. This export can then be treated as disposable since your master image still remains available, and ready for free further adjustment, and future other exports, back inside LR.

Unlike the original Raw file, you can actually do some useful things with this Exported copy - such as insert it into a document; or upload it to a web gallery, or email it to someone. (If using Photoshop with a Raw file, conventionally, then in order to do these things you would have needed to save out such a copy in any case.) Also you can "cut out the middleman", and directly Export from LR a suitable copy version straight onto the web, or into an email, without the intermediate step of saving such a file to a disk folder.

To see the changes, you view the photos in Lightroom. You no longer browse your Lightroom photos in Windows or Mac Finder. From this point forward, you use Lightroom to browse your photos. From this point forward, you use Lightroom to manage your photos. When you need photos for some non-Lightroom and non-Adobe purpose, you export them, and your changes will be visible in the exported file.

Having to now "browse my pictures only in Lightroom" is not considered a plus. I am not sure who would disagree with me.

I am not a big fan of the entire way that Adobe is handing changes at all and Adobe needs to address this issue because it is just that, an issue. We can use the catchy verbiage "non destructive" because it sounds nice but the fact is that it is cumbersome from a resource perspective and UI perspective. It adds extra steps and this entire workflow should be reexamined and the code, rewritten.

Just look at how Picasa handles this issue. When I click "Save" or better yet "Save All", all pictures are saved with the changes that I have made to them. A new folder is then created and named "Originals" where I can find my original files that I have edited. That’s it. My files are intact and I can now go and find them in my well-thought-out folder hierarchy where I can then do what ever I want from emailing to a client to sending them to Flicker, Facebook, Google+ Galleries, where ever I choose.

Adobe has a lot to learn from this free app. Currently, in Lightroom 4, I have to go back through the 300 pictures I just took, find the 40 that I have edited, then "Ctrl+Click" to select only them, then find my folder in my file directory, create a new folder, and finally export a new set of pictures. Who would think this this ideal when you need to prepare pictures for clients or want to upload them?

Now, I also stated that from a resource perspective this is also poorly conceived. I am referring to the fact that now I have to maintain a database in which changes are tracked that is always running in the background. God forbid if my computer was to crash or the program hangs up and the database becomes corrupt. What if I want to switch computers? Now I have lost all my changes so I guess I should manually go in several times a a month and backup my database to a separate directory. Great, Something else I have to worry about which ultimately takes away from my experience in the application.

This is 2012 and this should not be an issue. We all know that such databases are susceptible to corruption when not managed on a server and the constant writing and retrieval of data from this file just adds another unneeded process to eat up my RAM and takes up more room on your hard drive. This coming from a guy who has over 9TB on my personal server.

Simpler is better and this is one step backwards, not forwards.

At a minum, give me the option. If I want to overwrite my originals, let me do it!

No, it is not an issue. It is a feature that is unique to Lightroom. Lightroom displays all of your master images that you have chosen to import, and the catalog stores all the adjustments that you made using Lightroom. If you want to look to those images and other programs or viewers or on the web or whatever, then you need to export a copy for that purpose. That is the way Lightroom is designed. It is not a flaw, it is not an issue. It is something that a new user needs to understand and adopt into their workflow.

This is the whole reason I and a lot of people using LR, non-destructive editing. Say what you want to say, but I don't think Adobe will change any of it. I prepare photos for clients too, and I can tell you that I can do it much faster and more effecient in LR than before. The way you use LR is just not effecient, not the program itself.

Be clear on my point which is not that I dislike "Non Destructive" file handling but rather with the workflow. I am a fan myself and could never argue with it's usefulness but it could be handled better from a resource and UI perspective. The removal of "Save Changes" is also not welcomed. Give me the choice at least.

To say that Adobe has this 100% right is saying that there is no need to change it going forward. I think Adobe needs this type of constructive feedback to continually improve it's product. I disagree the point that I use it in an inefficient way and welcome any recommendations on using it better. I am an SOP/BPR systems trainer, I look at this stuff for a living and will tell you, this wont stick. It is here now but will be improved in later versions. Time will prove me right on this.

Technically, I guess you really do have that choice. You can choose to write the changes to XMP, and you can also choose to have Lightroom automatically write changes to XMP. If you are editing JPEG or tif files those changes will be written directly to the file. Personally, I have never used these options. But they are there if you want to use them. Other than that, I guess if you don't get it then you just won't get it.

@JimHess, If you are making changes in the develop module, to jpeg/tiff files and choose to write to xmp or auto write the info is stored in the file header, and the actual image data of the original file has not been changed. That info is only usefull to Photoshop with an equivalent ACR Plugin, other software will not be able to read the info. That's my understanding.

If Adobe sold only one image editing system, and forced a particular method such as Lightroom's onto all users, your points would be very valid.

However, Lightroom and Bridge are offered as alternatives, and each prospective user gets to choose which one makes the more sense for his or her situation - also there are hybrid approaches (via saved XMP) which may make less sense to the committed Bridge user, or to the committed LR user, but which make perfect sense for the person concerned.

Adobe have provided intercompatibility of editing and metadata settings, so that these programs can complement each other (as smoothly, as their fundamental differences allow).

So people who like the methods that LR uses, use LR fully. And people who think about their images in similar ways to your analysis, use Bridge, or a combination of these two, or some other setup entirely.

They may involve DNG for its updatable embedded previews and metadata. Or, they may use LR conventionally but Publish, or Export, external files encapsulating the LR edits, that other applications can then use directly - exactly as would have been necessary, btw, with any other converter program. Because, AFAIK, there is no major Raw converter whose saved nondestructive settings can be interpreted correctly by a different converter program, outside of the Adobe offerings. So I am not clear what more you wish LR to save out, beyond what it does already.

LR is specifically FOR people who are happy to use a virtualised working environment for their image library, and accordingly it is NOT going to satisfy people who do not want that. As simple as that, IMO.

I have a very interesting export problem. Using LR4. After editing, I exported RAW (CR2) files as Original (which gave me the XMPs), and as DNGs. Need to do this for a 3rd party import and friend wants to use RAW for that step. My friend has CS5 and LR3. None of the changes appear on his end. We even shared a folder - open the same file, he sees no changes, I see everything fine and edited.

We both IMPORTED the CR2s and DNGs (the ones I previously exported) back into LR, me LR4, he LR3. I see all the changes, he sees none.

It's more likely to do with the different process versions. If you use PV2012 in LR4, the edits you make cannot be recognised by PV2010 in LR3 (if you use PV2010 in LR4 you should be OK, but then you lose all the great features of the new PV). If your friend ensures that he updates to ACR6.7 in his version of PS/CS5 then at least he'll be able to see MOST of the PV2012 edits....only the new defringe controls introduced in LR4.1 wouldn't be recognised.

Yes, but it exports an XMP file along with it that contains the changes. Without it, it is the same as the original unchanged RAW. With it and opening the CR2 in PS, all changes appear as they should. I have made changes to many RAW files for people and then emailed back the XMPs because no need to resend the originals. Isn't that correct?

So, I open the CR2 in PS CS6 which now has its XMP and I see changes, but my friend doesn't.

Thanks for your reply. Okay, didn't know about PVs. Checked and I am using 2012. So if I change that to 2010 under Camera Calibration for the image, should my friend with LR3 and PS CS5 then see the changes in the exported CR2 XMPs and DNGs?

EDITED

I just changed the PV to 2010 and looks like all my changes disppeared.

However, just for the sake of clarity, it will only be SOME (albeit most) of the adjustments you make using PV2012 which WON'T be recognisable by LR3, i.e. Exposure, Contrast, Highlights, Shadows, Whites, Blacks and Clarity. Vibrance and Saturation WILL be recognised, plus any B&W treatment you may have applied.

Sticking with PV2010 would seem to be the best bet in this situation (or tell your friend to upgrade to LR4!).